CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beauchamp House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were generally safe, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were good. However, renovation work created environmental risks and call bells were not always answered promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people could access health professionals. Improvements were needed to food choices, the mealtime experience and monitoring of some people's fluid intake.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and knew people well. Inspectors also saw staff entering rooms without knocking and agency staff who did not always know or respect people's preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people knew how to raise concerns. Activities were not always meaningful or individualised, although managers had identified this and were working on improvements.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were committed to improving care and acted on issues found. However, quality checks had not identified all the shortfalls, and some staff did not have access to current policies.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Beauchamp House Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in leadership, safety during renovations and some aspects of daily care.
This was an unannounced inspection over two visits. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines records and management documents.
People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew them well. Medicines, infection control, staffing, care planning, health support and complaints handling were mostly good.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. These included risks from renovation work, slow call bell responses, limited meaningful activities, occasional failures to protect privacy and dignity, and weak monitoring of fluid intake. The home took action during or after the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home's checks had not identified all the problems found.
Safe medicines
People received medicines from trained staff whose competence had been checked. Storage, administration and auditing arrangements were described as safe.
“People received their medicines safely from trained competent staff and in line with their prescriptions.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind and compassionate. People and relatives also said staff were caring and respectful.
“Staff knew people well and we observed staff being kind and compassionate towards the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences and were regularly reviewed as needs changed.
“People's care plans were detailed and personalised on the providers electronic care system.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to access GPs and other health professionals. The home had regular links with health professionals connected to the GP practice.
“People had access to health care, this included a weekly visit by health care professionals linked to the GP practice.” from the report
Renovation safety
seriousBuilding work caused noise and debris, and risks around movement through the affected areas had not been assessed. One area was closed during the inspection.
“The home did not always provide a safe environment for people.” from the report
Slow call bell responses
needs fixingSome call bells were unanswered for more than ten minutes. Managers changed the audit and asked senior staff to monitor and respond to bells.
“When I press my button, it takes about 15 minutes if the usual carer is on, otherwise can take up to an hour.” from the report
Fluid monitoring
needs fixingThe system for checking fluid intake for people at risk of dehydration was not robust. Managers put in place a new daily monitoring system.
“Fluid intake was not being monitored by senior staff to assure themselves people were receiving enough fluids.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
minorSome staff entered rooms without knocking. Inspectors also heard language about meals that could make people feel less respected.
“A number of staff were observed on the first day of the inspection entering people's rooms without knocking first.” from the report
Meaningful activities
minorActivities were not always meaningful or tailored to individuals. Some people did not know who the activities worker was, and managers were working on improvements.
“The activities we observed did not demonstrate that people were receiving meaningful social interactions.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not found all the problems identified by inspectors. The provider was asked to make its checks more thorough.
“However, the quality monitoring processes which had been used had not identified all of the issues we identified at the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to keep people safe during renovation work, and are any building works still taking place?
- 02What are the current average call bell response times, and how are delays identified and dealt with?
- 03How do you check that people receive enough fluids when they are at risk of dehydration?
- 04How are activities now made meaningful and tailored to each person's interests?
- 05How do managers check that agency staff know people's preferences and protect their privacy and dignity?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; the report says this was the first inspection of the newly registered service, while the previous rating was published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Beauchamp House Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Beauchamp House Nursing Home →
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.